PDA

View Full Version : How important are head coaches?



G-Funk
04-30-2010, 12:34 PM
A lot of ppl here love to diss coaches, saying that anyone can coach if given the top players. Coach Karl is living proof that this statement is false, so stop the nonsence. Coaches are just as important as the players.

tdunk21
04-30-2010, 12:37 PM
very important....example mavs vs spurs game 6...rick did not let roddy play which could ave changed the outcome of the game and he played terry....head coaches r important coz of the minute decisions they take....those decisions can change the outcome of a game...

BKLYNNYRNYKNYY
04-30-2010, 12:37 PM
lmao... ask the nets

BKLYNNYRNYKNYY
04-30-2010, 12:38 PM
ask denver nuggets aswell

RipVW
04-30-2010, 12:48 PM
Theyre hugely important. People harp on Phil Jackson for having a lot of talent, which is true, but when you look at how he coaches, its interesting. He doesnt panic and suffocate his team. He lets things play out more than a lot of coaches and there's something to be said for that. When it matters most is when youll see Phil asserting himself more ardently.

I think a lot of people think that coaching means "doing stuff". But its also possible to overmanage your team. There's something to be said for a more hands off approach when you look at its benefit over the long haul. But when people see this, they often look at it as not doing anything other than picking out a starting 5.

But coaches are important. You might have a great coach, thats not always a great fit for your team but having a good coach means a lot.

EricU812
04-30-2010, 12:54 PM
I think of coaches like Larry Brown, who can turn bad teams into good teams. Then I think of people like Phil Jackson, who will only take good team, but then turn them into champions.

Coaching makes a difference.

RipVW
04-30-2010, 01:02 PM
I think of coaches like Larry Brown, who can turn bad teams into good teams. Then I think of people like Phil Jackson, who will only take good team, but then turn them into champions.

Coaching makes a difference.

People say that about Phil a lot but he won a championship when he was at Albany (before he was with the Bulls). Im pretty sure Albany didnt have a Michael Jordan. And then also, when Jordan retired in 93, the Bulls still did OK in 94. They were an eyelash away from going to the finals.

Phil is very underrated as a coach.

RaiderLakersA's
04-30-2010, 01:04 PM
I wouldn't dream of building a successful franchise without a good head coach. They are extremely important.

JNA17
04-30-2010, 01:04 PM
Theyre hugely important. People harp on Phil Jackson for having a lot of talent, which is true, but when you look at how he coaches, its interesting. He doesnt panic and suffocate his team. He lets things play out more than a lot of coaches and there's something to be said for that. When it matters most is when youll see Phil asserting himself more ardently.

I think a lot of people think that coaching means "doing stuff". But its also possible to overmanage your team. There's something to be said for a more hands off approach when you look at its benefit over the long haul. But when people see this, they often look at it as not doing anything other than picking out a starting 5.

But coaches are important. You might have a great coach, thats not always a great fit for your team but having a good coach means a lot.

I agree with most of this. Not only that but with good talent comes with huge egos, i think we can all agree about players back in the day like MJ, shaq, young kobe, etc. had big egos and i don't think any other coach would be able to win even with that talent. There's more to coaching then just listing plays and run a certain system.

Another example is during the 80s when the bulls had MJ and Pippen, etc. Still that same great talent that a lot of people seem to think that any coach can win titles with, well wait just a min, if that's the case, why coulden't the following coaches win even 1 title with MJ and Pippen!

Stan Albeck
Doug Collins
Kevin Loughery

These 3 coaches had MJ and were not able to get a single title nor did they ever reach the finals. Phil Jackson comes along and wow look at that?

Just my little phil jackson rant :D.

But to answer the question if i had not already, yes coaches are very important and it takes a great one to help win a title or two no matter what talent you have.

JNA17
04-30-2010, 01:07 PM
People say that about Phil a lot but he won a championship when he was at Albany (before he was with the Bulls). Im pretty sure Albany didnt have a Michael Jordan. And then also, when Jordan retired in 93, the Bulls still did OK in 94. They were an eyelash away from going to the finals.

Phil is very underrated as a coach.

the bulls that year still went 55-27 which is a great record for any team and that's right after losing your best player, i don't think a lot of teams are able to pull off something like that when losing a player that has been key to your entire franchise for years.

They also made it to the 2nd round and going 7 games with the knicks which was the team that made it to the finals.

G-Funk
04-30-2010, 01:08 PM
Theyre hugely important. People harp on Phil Jackson for having a lot of talent, which is true, but when you look at how he coaches, its interesting. He doesnt panic and suffocate his team. He lets things play out more than a lot of coaches and there's something to be said for that. When it matters most is when youll see Phil asserting himself more ardently.

I think a lot of people think that coaching means "doing stuff". But its also possible to overmanage your team. There's something to be said for a more hands off approach when you look at its benefit over the long haul. But when people see this, they often look at it as not doing anything other than picking out a starting 5.

But coaches are important. You might have a great coach, thats not always a great fit for your team but having a good coach means a lot.

I guess you have to scream, pace back and forth and pull your hair out so ppl think that u r coaching.

McAllen Tx
04-30-2010, 01:14 PM
Phil Jackson wouldnt be making $12 mil a year and Larry Brown $10 mil (I think) if coaching wasnt important

G-Funk
04-30-2010, 01:18 PM
^ some ppl say it's really overrated, I personally thought it wasnt that important,I knew it was just not to the point where it seems like thety are missing their second best player. can u imagine all teams that could have won a ring with the right coach???

Toenail Clipper
04-30-2010, 01:20 PM
Larry Brown sucks!

McAllen Tx
04-30-2010, 01:27 PM
I think there's only one other coach who could coach Kobe besides Phil and its Popovich. Im not sure Pop would want to coach Kobe though.

cheerio
04-30-2010, 01:27 PM
very important, not even going to get into this answer, if they weren't why have them

leftymo
04-30-2010, 03:11 PM
The 98 Lakers had 4 allstars including Shaq & Kobe... Fox, Horry, and Fisher were coming off the bench! Del Harris was their coach and they got swept in the conference finals.

Phil Jackson comes and immediately they win a title.

Coaching is important. In the last 23 years here is the list of coaches that won titles

1. Phil - 10
2. Popovich - 4
3. Riley - 3
4. Daly - 2
5. Tomjonovich - 2
6. Rivers - 1
7. Brown - 1

7 coaches for 23 championships... if it weren't important, you'd have 22 diff coaches!

JNA17
04-30-2010, 03:13 PM
The 98 Lakers had 4 allstars including Shaq & Kobe... Fox, Horry, and Fisher

fox, horry, and fisher....all stars? Please tell me you just started watching the nba.

Carey
04-30-2010, 03:35 PM
Very important, game management, adjustments, schemes, motivation....you see it even more so in the playoffs how valuable a coach is.

RipVW
04-30-2010, 03:37 PM
I agree with most of this. Not only that but with good talent comes with huge egos, i think we can all agree about players back in the day like MJ, shaq, young kobe, etc. had big egos and i don't think any other coach would be able to win even with that talent. There's more to coaching then just listing plays and run a certain system.

Another example is during the 80s when the bulls had MJ and Pippen, etc. Still that same great talent that a lot of people seem to think that any coach can win titles with, well wait just a min, if that's the case, why coulden't the following coaches win even 1 title with MJ and Pippen!

Stan Albeck
Doug Collins
Kevin Loughery

These 3 coaches had MJ and were not able to get a single title nor did they ever reach the finals. Phil Jackson comes along and wow look at that?

Just my little phil jackson rant :D.

But to answer the question if i had not already, yes coaches are very important and it takes a great one to help win a title or two no matter what talent you have.

I agree with you to a large extent but I think youre oversimplifying this era a little. There are a couple of things to consider. One, is that the Pistons came up with their brutal style of play after Jordan scored 59 points on them. This brutal style of play that won them two championships was really a reaction to Jordan abusing them. But the thing about this style of play is that it only worked because the NBA allowed it to work. The reason is that the Pistons redefined what a foul was. They put the league and its officials in a position where they could either call a foul like they had before and stop the game every 10 seconds. Or, they could maintain the flow of the game and by calling the same number of fouls but only calling the worst ones. Basically, the Pistons put the league in a position where they had to let a lot of stuff go if they were going to maintain the flow of the game. And so the league allowed this style of play by only calling the worst fouls. But it took the league a couple of years to adjust to this, including the Bulls. Doug Collins was their coach during this time. Also, there was the matter of Scottie being too young when Collins had him. Scottie needed time to adjust to the NBA especially with what was going on with the Pistons.

So, its not exactly fair to say, Phil did what Doug couldnt when you consider that part of what was going on had to do with where Scottie was as a player on a timeline.

But one thing you can say for Phil that distinctly demonstrates his merit and differentiates himself from Collins is that he implemented the triangle. At first Jordan didnt like it because it was "equal opportunity scoring". There was a point in time under Doug Collins where Jordan was playing the point and averaging a triple double for several games in a row. So, Phil took the team away from Jordan doing everything and, in reality, by not demanding Jordan do everything, it better allowed him to do everything.

But its also true that Phil benefited from inheriting a more evolved Scottie Pippen.

arkanian215
04-30-2010, 03:51 PM
lmao... ask the nets

:clap:

abe_froman
04-30-2010, 03:56 PM
not very,the impact of coaches get so overrated

abe_froman
04-30-2010, 03:59 PM
I agree with most of this. Not only that but with good talent comes with huge egos, i think we can all agree about players back in the day like MJ, shaq, young kobe, etc. had big egos and i don't think any other coach would be able to win even with that talent. There's more to coaching then just listing plays and run a certain system.

Another example is during the 80s when the bulls had MJ and Pippen, etc. Still that same great talent that a lot of people seem to think that any coach can win titles with, well wait just a min, if that's the case, why coulden't the following coaches win even 1 title with MJ and Pippen!

Stan Albeck
Doug Collins
Kevin Loughery

These 3 coaches had MJ and were not able to get a single title nor did they ever reach the finals. Phil Jackson comes along and wow look at that?

Just my little phil jackson rant :D.

But to answer the question if i had not already, yes coaches are very important and it takes a great one to help win a title or two no matter what talent you have.
well maybe the fact that stan and kevin where the coaches before pippen came inhto the league,so never had a shot to coach a team with both, might have something to do with it;)

McAllen Tx
04-30-2010, 04:00 PM
fox, horry, and fisher....all stars? Please tell me you just started watching the nba.

Van Exel and Eddie Jones were all-stars on that team.

I think thats who he's talking bout

Bubba17
04-30-2010, 04:00 PM
They're important..the Sixers declined big time this year, and the main reason was moron Eddie Jordan.

Raoul Duke
04-30-2010, 04:30 PM
Just look at the list of coaches to win championship rings over the last 30 years. It isn't a very long list.

heathonater
04-30-2010, 06:19 PM
yes, coaches are important, especially for a team like denver that has some more volatile personalities. karl was able to keep that team together, but once he left their play went south. i really underestimated the value of a good nba coach that can keep all the egos in check until karl had to leave for cancer treatment and noticing how denver doesnt look the same.

effen5
04-30-2010, 06:52 PM
Mike Brown is a joke of a coach imo. If phil was coaching the Cavs I think Bron would at least have a title by now.

Raph12
04-30-2010, 06:53 PM
Depends on the situation, some teams are just that damn good, while others need those coaches to even be significant.